|
BA looking at layoffs
|
From social media here is the sobering note to BA employees.
https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....4c7265fd8.jpeg |
Of course, he could have put a (Southwest) positive spin on it...
Cost base, blah, blah |
or Alex could have thought "great excuse to get rid of a few people and blame it on Corona rather than just a way to reduce the cost base generally"
|
BA have never been one to let a good crisis go to waste.
|
Originally Posted by clipstone1
(Post 10712739)
or Alex could have thought "great excuse to get rid of a few people and blame it on Corona rather than just a way to reduce the cost base generally"
Originally Posted by hunterboy
(Post 10712813)
BA have never been one to let a good crisis go to waste.
What world are you living in ? |
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK
(Post 10712829)
So you think Cruz is rubbing his hands with glee ?
What world are you living in ? |
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK
(Post 10712829)
So you think Cruz is rubbing his hands with glee ?
What world are you living in ? Just look at the post 2001 cutbacks. |
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK
(Post 10712829)
So you think Cruz is rubbing his hands with glee ?
What world are you living in ? |
Sky news reporting a possible UK travel ban to the States
|
From the BBC:
BA expected to suspend 36,000 staffBy Tom Burridge Transport correspondent, BBC NewsApril 1, 2020 The airline, which grounded much of its fleet due to the coronavirus crisis, has been negotiating with the Unite union for more than a week. The two sides have reached a broad deal but are yet to sign on some details. The agreement means that up to 80% of BA cabin crew, ground staff, engineers and those working at head office will have their jobs suspended but no staff are expected to be made redundant. The decision will affect all staff at Gatwick and London City Airport after the airline suspended its operations at both locations until the crisis is over. Those affected are expected to receive some of their wages through the government's coronavirus job retention scheme, which covers 80% of someone's salary capped at a maximum of £2,500 a month. It is thought that the Unite union has been pushing for staff to be paid more than that. BA has already reached a separate deal with its pilots who will take a 50% pay cut over two months. BA's parent company, International Airlines Group (IAG), is in a better financial position than some of its competitors. The group has made healthy profits in recent years. But the airline's expected decision to suspend such a large number of workers gives a sense of how hard UK aviation has been hit by travel restrictions, designed to stem the spread of the pandemic. With future bookings cancelled for the foreseeable future, airlines have been haemorrhaging cash. Over the next three months, the International Air Transport Association expects airlines to rack up losses of almost $40bn (£32.3bn). It said carriers were burning through their cash reserves fast, mainly because of the multi-billion-pound cost of refunding tickets for cancelled flights. Many staff at Virgin Atlantic have had their jobs suspended for two months and crews at Easyjet are out of work for three months. This week, British Airways has run government repatriation flights to get hundreds of British nationals home from Peru, after the country went into lockdown. It is one of several UK-based airlines that has agreed to run further repatriation flights in the coming weeks as hundreds of thousands of people are still stuck in other parts of the world. |
Thankyou and I have seen that on the news already. Not impressed that this news is out there before the affected have been informed by the company.
|
...and the staff have been furloughed - not suspended!
|
At least where I work, an announcement like this would go out to the stock markets first, then to the staff. Staff aren't (and pretty much can't be, due to US stock exchange rules) trusted with material nonpublic information about the company lest they leak it. I know BA's a UK/Spain quoted company but the principles are the same.
So, assuming the staff are reading a rolling newsfeedor have a news alert set up for the name of the company, we know major things via the press before the internal announcement communications hit our inboxes. It pretty much sucks for the feelings of the staff, but laws and lawyers ready to sue on behalf of shareholders if anything leaks mean that it'll never be any other way for a large company with a big announcement. If you work for a large quoted company and you're not one of the few insiders implementing a decision, you'll find out what's happening in the press like everyone else. |
No, some ******** leaked half a story to the Scum last night. The deal hadn't been done.
The new deal is very good for the staff affected. The TU have played a blinder. For a change. |
Originally Posted by TURIN
(Post 10737359)
The TU have played a blinder. For a change.
what are you getting over and above the Governments 80% contribution? |
Might this be the end of BA at LGW? Plenty of IAG outfits could cover those profit making routes, but that might be some years down the line.
|
Originally Posted by cashash
(Post 10737425)
what are you getting over and above the Governments 80% contribution?
Unite Press release There's certainly a body of opinion that Unite have indeed "played a blinder" compared with at least one Association. |
For now maybe? Doubtless WW will have the last word and is always the case those at the bottom end suffer the most. No change there!
|
Originally Posted by HZ123
(Post 10737536)
Might this be the end of BA at LGW? Plenty of IAG outfits could cover those profit making routes, but that might be some years down the line.
|
I have noticed on FR24 today 3 BA 747's en-route to Teruel in Spain , I guess for storage ....
|
Originally Posted by NorvernSuvna
(Post 10738286)
I have noticed on FR24 today 3 BA 747's en-route to Teruel in Spain , I guess for storage ....
|
Originally Posted by GeeRam
(Post 10738299)
4 of them actually went there today, the first one landed ahead of the other 3 while they were 'in trail' over France.
G-CIVA, CIVR, CIVS, CIVT and CIVX. |
Originally Posted by cashash
(Post 10737425)
what are you getting over and above the Governments 80% contribution?
|
IAG has been buying back its own stock for a decade known as stock buybacks, annually Euro 500million minimum.
If they want to survive , they must be forced to go to raise capital , they will have to dilute their stock as necessary to survive . Anything else is not acceptable to the UK taxpayer and Treasury. Look at the cruise ship companies eg Carnival , they are doing this now ..... why not IAG . They must sell stock or go to the Bond markets. Why should tax payers have a stake in IAG ?? Airlines in the USA went on an $18 Billion stock buyback spree .... why should they get govt bailouts etc.... they should sell shares , dilute as they have to to survive ... its outrageous. Airlines need to take their own action before expecting any assistance ....... dilute away if you want to survive !!! |
Can you point me in the direction of the source for your claims that IAG have carried out a minimum €500m per year share buyback every year for the past decade please? I recall only two periods of share buybacks one was for €500m and the other slightly more, perhaps €600m?
I agree that in normal times, companies should stand on their own two feet, however these are not normal times. The governments of the world are injecting so much cash into paying people’s salaries because without doing so, huge numbers of perfectly viable companies would simply collapse. The money is not being spent to prop up failing businesses, or to feed greedy shareholders. It is being spent to fight Cov19 and save millions and millions of lives. Calling a halt to economic activity is incredibly damaging and suggesting businesses should be left to deal with it unaided is staggeringly short-sighted. The world is already going to be a very different place when we come out the other side of this, but I shudder to think what it would be like if businesses and individuals were just left to deal with this by themselves. |
Whats short sighted is the view from airlines that they can get away with penalising their employees incomes and hope for easy handouts from the public purse rather than penalising their shareholders.
If you run a company that only covers a contingency of 1 months operation , that is bad management . So who pays immediately as always , the employees. IAG need to step up and take responsibility rather than bleating they are endangered. Raise capital , sell their stock holdings and go to the debt markets !!! Too bad the investors get hurt , they want it all their own way and cant stomach it when they are losing. They must take a hit with diluted stock and high loan rates. Once they show willing and then its still not enough then perhaps the Govt can furnish loan arrangements , for a tax payers share of course or the govt making money for tax payers on the loans. Tax payers are sick of paying up for fat cat companies who cant manage their business with appropriate safety nets . Share Buybacks 2015 500 million euro 2016 22 million shares(worth 1.08% of company worth) 2017 500million euro 2018 500 million euro 2019 700 million euro special dividend for shareholders + 500million euro buyback While employees yet again pay for greedy management and investors ..... there should be No sympathy for these fat cat companies. Info from IAG accounts and various share investment magazines |
From what I can see,IAG (or at least BA) are not geting any handout from government. Some of the staff are being furloughed on MORE than the 80% of basic that the government is paying. IE BA are putting their hands in their very deep pockets to enhance the government grants. Those staff are not working. They are not doing anything for BA. BA are not benefitiing in any way except being able to hopefully re-employ those staff at very short notice when things pick up. Would you rather they were all made redundant?
|
TURIN the furloughed staff (excluding Pilots) are paid 80% of their basic pay and 80% of their shift pay uncapped by the government. Unite have got a good deal in that there is no £2500/month cap.
|
Wisecaptain?
Originally Posted by wisecaptain
(Post 10739181)
IAG has been buying back its own stock for a decade known as stock buybacks, annually Euro 500million minimum.
If they want to survive , they must be forced to go to raise capital , they will have to dilute their stock as necessary to survive . EasyJet said it has a £1.6bn cash balance, an undrawn credit facility of $500m (£402m) and mortgage-free aircraft worth £4bn. Ryanair paraded cash and cash equivalents worth €4bn. IAG said it has €7bn in cash plus €1.9bn of finance facilities. It not clear how quickly those resources would be depleted during an extended period of no flying, but at least the companies seem to have the right approach: they know their own funds are first in line. https://www.theguardian.com/business...ut-of-airlines
Originally Posted by wisecaptain
(Post 10739181)
Why should tax payers have a stake in IAG ??
A row has erupted between Virgin Atlantic and British Airways over calls for a £7.5bn state bailout to protect airlines from collapse as the industry is ravaged by the coronavirus pandemic. Virgin Atlantic, backed by billionaire businessman Sir Richard Branson and US giant Delta, has asked for emergency loans from Whitehall - but the owner of long-term rival BA has insisted no further aid is needed for carriers. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business...e-coronavirus/ IAG have cancelled payment of their final dividend to shareholders, another airline payed out ~£170m. "Wisecaptain" .........Some light reading for you: https://www.iairgroup.com/~/media/Fi...nts%202019.pdf IAG are likely to be the last ones standing |
I agree. Little Richard, "capitalize the profits, but socialise the losses....."
|
Originally Posted by Private jet
(Post 10740659)
I agree. Little Richard, "capitalize the profits, but socialise the losses....."
|
Or in other words, socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor. This isn’t 2008 and I don’t think people are going to accept this sorry state of affairs. |
Originally Posted by yotty
(Post 10740640)
TURIN the furloughed staff (excluding Pilots) are paid 80% of their basic pay and 80% of their shift pay uncapped by the government. Unite have got a good deal in that there is no £2500/month cap.
Yes, I know, I'm one of them. See my previous post above. |
I agree , IAG are likely to be among the last ones standing and if they have cash will scoop up the slots of those less fortunate airlines.
If they burn through 9 Billion ,then they can sell their stock holdings etc etc What are their costs per day ,week month ?? As long as they go through that process before asking for govt assistance , thats all Im saying. |
Originally Posted by Private jet
(Post 10740708)
Yes, but remember that capitalism can't be for the poor by it's very definition, which most people don't understand. Capitalism basically means those with wealth, in other words capital, using that wealth to make more, with minimal effort from them and maximum effort from others. It has nothing to do with the fantasy of working hard to become successful . That is a lie that has hung over from when it was promulgated in the Thatcher/Reagan era.
In a free market you have the right to be a Jeff Bezos, or be the beggar that asks for change at the corner bar. Liberty gives you the right to chose, not everyone chooses hard work. And those who put up the capital are putting up all the risk. If the company goes tits up, they stand to lose the most. Workers just lose their job, which is better than losing all your money. That is why these bailouts are most certainly not capitalism and free market driven. It is state owned socialism, and should be labeled as such. If you remove the moral hazard then you are removing a critical component of free markets. You can succeed if you take risk and devote everything to your goal. But most that take that risk end in failure. Which is why most people opt for careers as workers, like us pilots. |
Originally Posted by Sqwak7700
(Post 10742093)
And those who put up the capital are putting up all the risk. If the company goes tits up, they stand to lose the most. Workers just lose their job, which is better than losing all your money.
On the contrary, the workers are not just losing their job but also their pension funds..... . |
Originally Posted by Sqwak7700
(Post 10742093)
Workers just lose their job, which is better than losing all your money.
|
Originally Posted by Bidule
(Post 10742119)
Except the capital is far to be only the money of the "one who takes the risk" as you say. To take your example of Jeff Bezos, he "only" holds 11.2% of Amazon and as his reported wealth is much higher than that, even if Amazon went tits up, he would still have a lot remaining.
On the contrary, the workers are not just losing their job but also their pension funds..... . A more typical case is the entrepeneur who has used his/her house as collateral to start up a business. If the business fails, the entrepeneur loses their income and their house. |
Originally Posted by marchino61
(Post 10742258)
Basing your ideas on the richest man in the world is hardly going to give a typical case.
A more typical case is the entrepeneur who has used his/her house as collateral to start up a business. If the business fails, the entrepeneur loses their income and their house. I know I know, this is an extreme example but it does happen. I have the utmost respect for any entrepreneurs who come up with an idea, successfully build their business and employ people on good wages and T & Cs. Wetherspoons and First Direct are not included. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 08:50. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.